The bros line up for Trump: Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Sundar Pichai and Elon Musk (Credit:Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AFP/Getty)
Just before leaving the White House, in January 1961, President Eisenhower famously warned against the “military-industrial complex”, describing how defence firms and military officials colluded to unduly shape public policy. Joe Biden, 64 years later, dedicated his own parting message to similar themes. He evoked a new oligarchy — a “tech-industrial” complex that sucks power into Silicon Valley at the expense of the American people.
Biden was obviously alluding to the warm ties between Donald Trump and Big Tech billionaires like Elon Musk. Yet if the outgoing President’s critique rings hollow, not least given his own administration’s closeness to corporate interests, there is some truth to his claims. The burgeoning ties between Big Tech and the US government really are reshaping the country’s future, and they’re likely to receive a massive boost under Trump.
As he begins his second term, Trump’s links to the tech industry are vividly clear. Musk, to give one example, pledged substantial funds to Trump’s campaign. He was duly named co-lead of the new Department of Government Efficiency, a role that enables him to directly influence federal budget decisions. Not to be outdone, all the major tech firms have donated millions to Trump’s inauguration fund, with everyone from Jeff Bezos to Tim Cook enjoying front-row seats on Monday. This signals a major political realignment among Silicon Valley elites, traditionally a hotbed of liberal progressivism. Earlier this month, for instance, Zuckerberg announced he would remove fact-checkers from his platforms.
However, this is about more than mere political opportunism, picking a winner and adapting to the new political landscape. Nor can this cosiness be understood simply by what Trump has promised the billionaires: notably taking a more hands-off approach to crypto and AI. What’s unfolding here is part of a much larger story, one that blends Eisenhower’s military-industrial past with Biden’s tech-industrial present. Welcome, then, to America’s techno-military future. With private sector giants behind it, the US security state will become more deadly than ever, even as their reliance on federal contracts exposes both the hypocrisy of the tech bros and the continuity of Trump’s policy programme.
This isn’t a totally new phenomenon: industry’s ties to government, rooted in Cold War militarism, were exactly what Eisenhower feared back in the Sixties. What’s different now, though, is the way American military and intelligence capabilities have been outsourced to Big Tech. Consider Amazon, a major provider of cloud computing services to both the Department of Defense and the CIA. No less striking, Amazon has actively developed AI tools for logistics optimisation and battlefield analysis, further embedding itself in defence operations. Its competitors have moved in a similar direction too. Google’s foray into military technology includes Project Maven, which uses AI to analyse drone footage for surveillance and targeting. Despite internal protests, forcing Google to withdraw from the project, the company continues to provide critical cloud services to government agencies.
Microsoft, for its part, has secured numerous defence contracts, including developing the Integrated Visual Augmentation System for the US Army. A $22 billion scheme, it enhances the situational awareness of troops via augmented reality. Though it’s traditionally boasted fewer links to the Pentagon, Meta has lately entered the field too, making its Llama large language model available for military customers. This last example underscores how Big Tech firms are leveraging cutting-edge AI tools for military ends, further blurring the lines between private innovation and US foreign policy.
Nor are the Big Tech firms alone here, with a new wave of smaller companies emerging in their wake. They call themselves Little Tech — though they’re actually worth billions of dollars, with their wealth often secured through lucrative defence contracts. One example: SpaceX’s Starlink satellite system has become indispensable for US military operations, providing secure, reliable internet in conflict zones including Ukraine. Musk’s outfit is also developing a constellation of bespoke spy satellites for intelligence agencies, further strengthening its role in national security. Anduril, founded by Palmer Luckey, does similar work. Initially gaining attention for its migrant-detecting surveillance towers, it has expanded to build autonomous drones alongside missiles, robots and other defence technologies.
Yet no company epitomises techno-militarism better than Palantir. Established by Peter Thiel, who received early funding from the CIA’s venture capital arm, he’s developed his company in close partnership with several US intelligence agencies. One Palantir product, Gotham, integrates surveillance and reconnaissance data to provide insights for counterterrorism and battlefield intelligence. Another programme, Foundry, offers logistics and supply chain management. These systems are proving useful in the field: they’ve helped Ukraine fight Russia and Israel target Hamas fighters in Gaza.
No less important, this new generation of techno-militarists is also shaping public discourse. Their leaders, notably Thiel and Luckey, are known for unapologetically embracing an aggressive neo-imperialist ideology that glorifies war and violence as fundamental expressions of patriotic duty. “Societies have always needed a warrior class that is enthused and excited about enacting violence on others in pursuit of good aims,” Luckey explained in a recent talk. “You need people like me who are sick in that way and who don’t lose any sleep making tools of violence in order to preserve freedom”. Alex Karp, the CEO of Palantir, has made similar claims, arguing that to restore legitimacy and strengthen national security, the US should make its enemies “wake up scared and go to bed scared” — something which could be achieved by collective punishment.
What unites these self-styled techno-warriors is their belief that the US must use technology, especially AI, to assert their country’s global dominance — a development they incidentally stand to profit massively from. The obvious target here is China, which Thiel and the rest see as an existential threat to US hegemony. Crucially, they argue that the traditional defence behemoths, as well as the Big Tech monopolists, are ill-suited to the task, not least because of their cumbersome corporate structures.
Last year, Palantir even published a manifesto attacking the Pentagon’s established contracting practices. Among other things, it said the Department of Defense must encourage competition and speed up development — naturally by further opening up to Little Tech. This represents nothing less than a declaration of war against legacy contractors, especially once you recall that Palantir and Anduril are reportedly in talks with about a dozen competitors, including SpaceX and ChatGPT maker OpenAI, to jointly bid for contracts from the US’s colossal $850 billion defence budget.
At any rate, this activity underscores the hollowness of the libertarian and anti-statist ideology espoused by tech bros like Thiel. As much as they may claim to oppose big government, the truth is the techno-military complex is wholly dependent on the state: to cannibalise foreign markets, channel funding from security agencies — and, of course, to wage wars. As Little Tech’s ideological guru, indeed, Thiel has cultivated extensive ties with Magaworld, donating $15 million to JD Vance’s 2022 Senate campaign, who for his part went on to invest in Anduril.
Whoever wins the looming civil war between Big Tech and its more abrasive cousin, it’s clear that the techno-military complex will shape not only the new administration — but also American society, exacerbating the growing interdependence between state power and corporate interests. Perhaps most striking of all, though, is what the techno-military complex says about Trump’s policy platform. The new President has presented himself as an anti-interventionist, and as a candidate of peace, yet his administration is closely aligned with companies reliant on perpetuating US militarism. The techno-warriors’ fixation on China exemplifies this dynamic, as tension with the People’s Republic offers ample opportunities to high-tech defence firms. As long as corporations that thrive on war continue to exercise influence over American foreign policy, it’s unlikely the country will ever be able to kick its war-hungry tendencies.
The growing power of the techno-military complex has domestic implications too. The surveillance technologies developed by firms like Palantir can obviously be deployed at home as well as abroad — as indeed they already have been. In 2009, after all, JPMorgan used a Palantir programme called Metropolis to monitor employee data, including emails and GPS locations, to spot signs of discontent. Once again, figures like Thiel parrot libertarianism while profiting from authoritarian surveillance technologies, a contradiction poised to haunt the new administration. It’s early days, but it doesn’t take an Eisenhower to guess which way these tensions will work out.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeSystems that are in existence today would make those of 2009 look like toys. Computers today can recognise and identify objects in images, effortlessly hear spoken language, translate it from and to any language correctly, read and understand text and even intelligently plan responses. All this at a scale and speed that’d be impossible for humans. We are at or very near the singularity moment. If we were worrying about privacy back then, it’s immensely more powerful now.
This conflates the experience of the old military-industrial complex with the techno-miliary complex. The big difference is that the private enterprises in the “techno-military” complex invest their own money and earn a rate of return on it.
Reading this, the question i ask myself is: does this make future wars more, or less, likely?
TF suggests that the development of tech systems that seems to be underpinning the incumbent Trump regime will inevitably lead to a more aggressive foreign policy, despite Trump’s stated claim to be a seeker of peace.
Trump’s term (if completed) over the next four years would just be the beginning of course, and even if he were to eschew military engagements, the tech developments during this period would be proliferating and amplifying to the extent that would likely determine the future course of the US for a very long time – an unfolding of the 21st century world.
So, do these developments assist with the progression of military conflict or the hindrance of potential aggressors from the East (or elsewhere)? If China and Russia are engaged in the same tech processes, would it not be remiss of the US – indeed, an era-defining mistake – not to do the same; and, hopefully more powerfully? Would this not be a necessary deterrent to future global conflict – the stakes being just far too high, as we’ve seen during the Cold War period? For instance, would China be more or less likely to launch an invasion of Taiwan if the military tech capability of the US made it forbiddingly costly to do so, even in their own back yard?
Without such US capability, i just feel that we in the West would be at the mercy of whoever else took an unassailable lead in military tech. There’d be no need for an actual invasion, i.e. boots on Western soil. From that perspective, i’m not at all sure that TF’s conclusion is valid.
Trump’s posturing is making clear reality. These problems that you’re now concerned about existed previously (apriori). Its the status quo. Your mind has just been liberated from the fake controversies concealing the real issues.
I’ve not commented on this particular issue before, so you’ve no idea of what i might’ve thought, “apriori” (sic).
You implied in your statement that Trump may accelerate or exacerbate global tensions by going through a list of problems that existed prior to Trump’s reelection.
Nope. I suggested it was the author who’d implied Trump might increase global tensions, an idea with which i disagreed.
Fair enough.
Yes. Someone is going to win the digital arms race whether we like it or not. I’d much prefer it to be the Americans.
However, whilst the libertarian tradition in the US is probably strong enough to resist domestic misuse of the technology, I’m not sure we can say the same here in the UK. I suspect we’ll find out quite soon.
I think you can quite clearly see that the UK does not have an arms race. If it has even a ‘technology’ it is not in the forefront of the world. Europe does not exist as an entity and does not have either. The only choice is between China, the USA and Russia – including areas they work together with like, perhaps South Korea.
A couple of days ago there was a discussion about why China would invade Taiwan and I remember comments about Taiwan not being important. Those with medium-term memories would see Taiwan as a hotbed of capitalism – this is what China wants.
What I meant was that our government is likely to be less squeamish about using technology – anyone’s technology – against us than the government of the US.
Military contractors are a fact of life for the world’s largest military. It’s a victory if unelected DoD executives and generals stop getting paid to sit on the board of big defence contractors.
China is no slouch when it comes to military enhancement. The Sino- American arms race is yet another instalment of a phenomenon that goes back a long way: 19th century naval race/s, onwards.
So far, it has not made the World safer place, other than for short periods of time.
Well, American power has made Europe a safe place for eighty years despite the fecklessness of Europeans.
Unfortunately that would have ended the Cold War or Cosy War as it really was.
America needed an ‘enemy’ real or imagined to keep the “military industrial complex” going at full throttle. They did not want a repeat of what happened after 1919-1929.
Wow! Is that the real Charles Stanhope, otherwise known on UnHerd as Mr History? But this time a more serious CS in capital letters.
Well, in Russia, they got a “real” and enduring enemy.
I can’t help but fund it funny that big government leftists always hyperventilate when their opposition gets to access the tools they’ve created.
The Democrat Party is the party of government contracts. There’s no way around it. It’s what they do because the smart people in the Party realize how impractical it is to have the State run things like medical care, energy and food distribution. So they used the public private partnerships of the ESG agenda to streamline service. Now they want to complain because they’re not in control of it anymore.
These people have no problem with billionaires until they stop working for the left’s political cause. If they really cared that much about Tech Dystopia there’s a simple solution here…for the Left to become Madisonian scholars of the Constitution. Limited Government would put a cap on government contracts. A separation between State and Corporation.
Yes, it’s quite ironic coming from a politician who was put in the White House by George Soros, Larry Fink and Sam Bankman-Fried and conscientiously repaid their investment by scrapping border controls and enforcement of the law in the cities whilst printing trillions of dollars for them.
Yes, the democrats are the party of government contracts. The republicans are against public spending but then do it anyway and even more so. At least, this has been the reality since Reagan. There were a lot of reasons to privatize things but the efficiency argument is just rhetoric in many cases. What is technically the difference between the public sector or a crony private sector with government guaranteed monopolies anyway?
Not much. Whether public sector or private sector, monopoly is the key word here.
The difference in the US is that the government is willing to fire firms but loathe to fire government employees. Current rules make the latter so difficult as to be nearly impossible.
Joe Biden and Democrat Leaders were for the Tech Oligarchy before they were against it.
In fact, the Tech Oligarchy has fed Democrats’ psychopathy and impulsiveness for a whopping 16 years – ever since Obama was elected, including their documented rejection of democracy when they supported Democrat Leaders who were disrupting duly-elected President Trump’s first four years in Office.
Joe and Democrats are merely mad and throwing around threats because the Tech Oligarchy is no longer (overtly) supporting them during their upcoming ‘Resistance’ to the outcome of democracy.
Reading this, I’m not so concerned about what military capabilities the US is going to build up or how much these corporations are going to be in cahoots with the government.
I’m more worried about Europe not getting its backside into gear security-wise and clinging onto the past. I’m also worried that our politicians (who are still thinking in 20th century terms 25 years after the fact) will carry on freely insulting Trump and his coterie as if virtue signalling is going to protect us and the US is going to keep bankrolling our security no matter what.
It just seems like common sense not to go insulting the guy with the massive modern military capability – but common sense I feel is something that is only going to be reinstated in our establishment via some kind of nasty, large-scale incident that leaves no room at all for interpretation on where the world is now.
We could start with the European Legacy Media having a change of heart, and employing traditional journalists, seeking the truth, and knowing what it was when they caught a glimpse.
In addition, in the UK, and elsewhere in the West, some of the senior military, on retirement, work for the MIC. Quite apart from the ‘cozyness’ of the arrangement, it is taking those from a very hierarchical structure, with the weight of the state behind them, and putting them into an R&D environment, where applying competitive Engineering skills should be to the fore. No wonder the MOD rarely delivers on military projects.
It is said that, while Russia spends a small fraction of its GDP on the military, the results ‘aren’t far behind’ the West, as we have recently seen in Eastern Europe.
Seriously? Before the Ukraine War, people thought that Russia had the second best military in the world. They now know it has the second best military in Ukraine.
The US may have the best military equipment, but how many wars have they won since WWII?
Russia may have not done much better, but it’s horses for courses. Russia hasn’t wasted resources to the same extent as has the USA, or the West. And when money is short that matters. How can the best army run out of ammunition?
Gee, let me think. Gulf 1 and Gulf 2 spring to mind.
Those are not much to boast about.
What about Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan
Russia hasn’t wasted resources? With a population of @140 million, they should all be amongst the wealthiest people on earth thanks to huge natural resources. Instead the babushka out in the gulag areas is still scratching around trying to get the outdoor loo working. Endemic corruption from high to low.
There’s no real point in countering facts with political statements. Wishful thinking isn’t the route to success.
Accurate.
Fully agree about Europe taking more (full?) responsibility for its own defence, but the levels of tech required to match the US and China would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to replicate in any meaningful timeframe. Conventional weaponry, as we’re seeing in Ukraine (and probably why the conflict “drones on” as it were) is no longer enough.
Europe doesn’t have to match the US or China, it has to match Russia. That is who it is going to be at war with.
But Europe does not exist unless you include all the unelected hangers-on. There is no democratic Europe.
Yes, if everyone is massively subsidizing their tech sectors, Europe should do it as well. But perhaps they plan to. Defense spending has often served as a pretense for subsidizing the market, and Europe is now aiming to increase its military expenditures. However, I do think that the incoherent and dated fiscal policies under the Maastricht treaty is keeping the Eurozone back.
Also the idea that American tech is miles ahead is a bit exaggerated I think. Some sectors like the automotive industry certainly need to start making 21st century cars but that should be doable. As for online big tech companies I think much of the US dominance is also due to the monopoly status some companies enjoy. I don’t see why European companies cannot technically develop a competitor to Facebook, Amazon or ChatGPT.
The semiconductor industry is a bit different, it is hard to compete with a company like Nvidia any time soon. Then again, all advanced chips are produced with machines that only a European company can produce: ASML.
You have it backwards. US dominance is not due to tech companies monopoly status. Their “monopoly” status is due to their dominance, i.e., their dynamism and growing capabilities.
Arguing with the premise of the article, I’m not sure that Trump intends to rely upon military might. I believe he will pivot the USA to economic might – it will be perhaps cheaper and more effective. Look at how effective the mention of tariffs has already been. Plus it dodges around much of the internal resistance buried in the upper echelons of the military.
And yes, part of the pivot is a recognition that the world is a different place. Organised military are not very effective against ‘irregular’ terrorists, and there are plenty of those, and many do not threaten the USA directly.
71 likes and 2 thumbs down…..much much more to discuss. So a thumbs down from me as there is more to discuss….but it takes time.
I find the 71 likes chilling, but agree, yes difficult times.
Will try and post another comment about Palantir (please see my reply to Max) and a small NGO, Drone Wars UK.
The Drone Wars TeamDrone Wars UK Steering Committee
There are currently seven members of the Steering Committee, which meets 3 times per year. All act in a personal capacity
Ann Feltham, Former Parliamentary Co-ordinator of Campaign Against Arms TradePat Gaffney, Former General Secretary, Pax ChristiDave Webb, Chair, CNDDr Max Brookman-Byrne, Lecturer in International Law, Lincoln UniversityHaifa Zangana, author and activist.Helen Close, Omega Research FoundationZeenat Sabur, PhD candidate, University of Manchester
This technology is good because it will lead to humanoid robots that will end tbe drudgery of manual labour.
… and the moral obstacles to killing real humans!
No use for them if they don’t do manual labour…..
Perhaps ‘they’ the Robots could start mining the Selby Coalfield again. Sooner or later we are going to need it again.
I remember reading sci-fi books in the late 60s which said exactly the same thing. All household chores will disappear for ever; robot nannies will look after babies. Already, robot pilots could fly the passenger planes… but they don’t.
Well, given that we all know some IT nerds, none of us would get on a plane without a human pilot on it.
Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings mythology has provided some fascination or inspiration here.
The palantir were the seeing stones. They presented a view of anything the bearer wanted to see. Yet, like the pronouncements of the Delphic Oracle, the palantir were not reliable guides for action.
The palantir could be used by both sides in the War of the Ring. They could influence the user to despair or be a means of interrogation of the possessor by a user of another ‘seeing stone’.
Anduril is the sword passed down through the ages as an heirloom. It is instrumental in the acquisition of the Ring of Power, an object that betrays the wearer. Anduril is reforged after being broken in a war, and is used to raise and command a huge army.
Worth reflecting again on what Eisenhower actually said – ‘…we must guard against the unwarranted influence…’ is the crucial bit we remember. However he was telling the US public the World is more uncertain and US must be ready. Deterrence must be strong. He wasn’t saying military development not needed, quite the reverse at the time with the Soviets ahead in Space especially. Rather that the potential malign influence of that Sector must be guarded against.
Less than 2 years later JFK saw how quickly elements of that coalition could rush into World devastating conflict which he had to resist. There seems circumstantial evidence some elements held that against him.
The ‘unwarranted influence’ requires a balancing strong accountable Government, good separation of powers, a POTUS that is not conflicted and pluralism that welcomes transparency. The real concern is these are more fragile now.
We already know Trump will cede some of his promises to protect the Billionaire tax cuts and the trillions this is going to cost. That’s already a big indication the ‘influence’ is v troublesome. One positive though is that inevitably at some point, for all the red meat tossed their direction, Trump core support will begin to realise where first loyalties really lay and demand a correction.
Why do you think Biden opened the borders? Because George Soros, who essentially finances the Democratic Party, paid him to, just as he paid so many lawyers to release violent criminals. That corruption alone has done far more damage to ordinary Americans than any tax cut could. These ‘we’re better than them’ narratives are driven by pure narcissism.
Your level of derangement seems to be worsening HB. That said the fact you play an anti-semite conspiratorial card I guess not really a surprise. You know what you were doing. Or maybe you don’t?
Your position appears to be that objecting to policies supported by the spending of a very wealthy man is anti-Semitic. If so, how is this not deranged.
I’m Jewish you stupid, stupid man.
Good article Thomas and certainly something to be wary of, none of us want to wake up in a neoliberal prison. However, I think that you underestimate the external threat to America from China and the need to rely on technological innovation to keep up with China’s military capabilities.
America are about to significantly fall behind China’s navy, have a far smaller population, and have had their cultural morale sapped from within. Without cutting edge AI I don’t believe they could hope to win a war against China without going nuclear. But at least they’re trying.
The dinosaurs leading the EU have ostensibly outlawed technological innovation and AI research with insane privacy laws and have, for decades, neglected their military while expecting America to foot the bill for their defence.
No on population. The USA’s population continues to grow and is projected to keep growing for decades. China’s population is shrinking at an accelerating rate. Worse, for China, their working age population is shrinking even faster. That includes the number of people available for military duty.
Finally, someone else notices the connection to Peter Thiel and Palantir. Where was all this concern about tech when one platform after another was silencing dissenting on everything from covid to Hunter’s laptop to Ukraine?
I have no doubt Trump made a deal of sorts with tech. Thiel was JD Vance’s key benefactor in running for the Senate. Vance is of that world, the confluence of tech and venture capital. Whether this is good or sinister remains to be seen, but it’s there. Palantir ought to be worrisome but it should have been worrisome long before Trump.
Also, this is one more article that skips over the other half of Eisenhower’s famed speech, the part that warned about the growing trend of govt funding scientific research. Its results are evident in the climate scare, they came to the fore during the pandemic, and they continue in other ways.
It’s difficult to envisage a world of peace with the human population growing within the context of a fixed resource base.
It is this dynamic that is fuelling populism as national populations overshoot their national bio-capacity and therefore become increasingly reliant on foreign land, energy and materials.
https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/??_ga=2.184355247.860331481.1726890674-847383738.1726890674
Thus in the first instance, national level population overshoot is an act of violence since it requires appropriating foreign land, energy and materials which need to be protected along with the protection of the global supply chains that eminate from appropriated land, energy and materials.
https://www.tni.org/en/publication/the-global-land-grab#whatimpacts
In this respect, idealised ideas of global peace can only be achieved by limiting population growth, especially within ecological deficit countries like the US whereby each person in America requires 7.8 global hectares of land but the biocapacity of America is 3.7 global hectares of land.
Obviously a case can be made to reduce per capita consumption of land, energy and materials but the same dynamic does not exist for the UK where consumption is 3.9 gha and national biocapacity is 1.1 gha. In this respect, the UK population needs a staggering 21.3 million hectares of foreign land just to satisfy the UK’s demand for seven commodities (beef & leather, cocoa, palm oil, pulp & paper, rubber, soy and timber).
https://www.wwf.org.uk/riskybusiness
If this isn’t an example of globalised human rights violations leading to poverty, conflict and forced displacement, what is!
Therefore, without taking into consideration the population – consumption dynamic within a global environment of relatively fixed resources, then an analysis of the techno-military-State complex is holistically incomplete.
The patterns are becoming clear. Technology and weapons manufacturing are two distinct industries. Weapons rely on raw materials like steel and iron, requiring physical production, while technology is primarily software. Though these industries collaborate, they are not the same.
Technology is far more powerful because it is closer to home, directly impacting individuals. As we saw during COVID, entire countries can be shut down with a single email.
Trump is likely to disrupt these industries by inserting the state between them—which is why he aligns with figures like Musk and the technobros. His goal is to separate the manufacturing of weapons from the software that controls them. How he will do this remains unclear, but if he succeeds in creating enough disruption, it could shift the trajectory of America.
A crucial overlooked point: America was at its most powerful when it had a single adversary—the USSR. Since then, it has lacked a direct opponent, making it difficult for the U.S. to grasp nations where manufacturing and technology are fully integrated—China being the prime example.
If Trump is attempting to disentangle these industries to curb America’s war-driven mindset, it’s worth noting that China and Russia have already integrated them. Russia, in particular, is highly advanced in technology. Many of the top U.S. tech CEOs have Russian origins (and are relatively new immigrants), yet Russia does not publicize its technological prowess the way the U.S. does.
The key issue to watch is how Trump isolates these industries while placing the government in between. That’s the first critical shift.
The second: Every U.S. president who has challenged the military-industrial complex has either died, been assassinated, impeached, or lost an election. Whether Trump succeeds in diverting focus from war to domestic development will depend entirely on whether he completes his four-year term.
As FDR once quipped, the last thing any government wants is for the population to rise against those in power. And Trump—with tweet—could name the group he sees as holding America back. That alone could trigger a seismic shift.
All the fanfare from the alienated WHO, EU, and allied nations exists precisely because, instinctively, Trump is an isolationist. (Isolation and war-mongering rarely go hand in hand—watch his actions, not his words.)
He’s pulling a Jacksonian move, speaking out of both sides of his mouth. He does this because it’s what the media craves—he is, above all, a performer and entertainer. His ability to shift positions at any moment feels jarring in a culture that demands rigid consistency and political loyalty!
When we accuse China of stealing intellectual property, they didn’t steal it—they simply changed the rules midway. Trump is doing the same, disrupting accepted orthodoxy. For now, he needs the technobros, but he’s losing allies simply because he no longer needs them for his agenda.
“there is at least some truth…” While seeing those boit lickers lines up behind him, not yet realizing that all the money in the world won’t make them feel like real boys.
By “techno-military complex” I think you simply mean than government (sensibly) relies on private companies to get things done. Not seeing the problem.
“Last year, Palantir even published a manifesto attacking the Pentagon’s established contracting practices. Among other things, it said the Department of Defense must encourage competition and speed up development.” Good for Palantir. Defense contracting should be more transparent and open to competition.
“At any rate, this activity underscores the hollowness of the libertarian and anti-statist ideology espoused by tech bros like Thiel.” Except for absolutist anarchist libertarians (we must have zero government today), having a military is entirely compatible with libertarianism. It is actually one of the few core functions of the state.
“Good for Palantir”
However, Palantir is many many things and there are many many issues. Be careful what you wish for Max.
Interesting to see the list of NGOs supporting the petition. Link below.
https://nopalantir.org.uk/
Do we have any reliable metrics on how useful they’ve been? Ukraine is losing, and Israel can hardly be said to have “targeted” Hamas fighters, they just bombed indiscriminately.
That last bit definitely isn’t true. Israel has made a number of very targeted strikes on Hamas and Hezbollah leaders.
Quite right. If they managed in Beirut, Damascus, and Tehran (all in flagrant violation of international law), why couldn’t they manage in Gaza?
Simple answer, make government smaller.
If governments have less money to spend people decide what to do with their own labour. That is true democracy when people can vote and and also vote with their labour.
Now ask yourself which government is more likely to drop the size of government?
None. It is not in government’s interest to drop the size of itself….
That is a big problem. At least if you ca get them to just spend what they tax currently you have the problem of spending your great grand kids labour.
Europe would be well served if we had our own Gods of War like Thiel and Luckey.
Oh, these gentlemen are going to go and fight the Russians for us? Good-o!
Against this background, Wes Streeting is preparing to hand over to Peter Thiel’s Palantir the Holy Grail of the world’s healthcare data, those of our own dear National Health Service, while Peter Kyle, the closest friend and ally of Ivor Caplin over many decades, is moving Britain towards digital identity cards.
How odd that my comment about Musk’s “salute” yesterday was zapped by the moderators.
I’d very interested to hear what other commenters thought about that revealing little moment….
You’re here! People keep saying “Where is CS?” I will report back that you have been located, safe and well!
I can only speak from my observation in my small corner of the world, but I believe these BigTech people are their own warriors.
At this moment, land is being cleared next to our farm on a thousand acres of woodlands and farm fields for a massive data center. The land was chosen because of the close proximity to a shuttered power plant that will obviously be put back on line. There’s no lack on information how concerning these “hyper scale” data centers are being built in communities. And there is an all out hyper race to build as many as possible across the country.
The amount of power and water they require is mind boggling, and I think unsustainable in my lifetime. We’ve been forced to conserve water and power here for the last two years. Our wells have run dry several times. We experience power outages monthly. We no longer can support livestock here, so we rely mostly field crops now.
These tech companies have the legal and lobbying power to pretty much undo any local ordinances that limit what type of buildings can be constructed on previously-zoned land. Our zoning was completely wiped out with a text amendment procedure, and our environmental protections are gone. I understand Biden signed an Executive Order to allow Federal Land to be opened up for data center construction.
Citizen groups undoubtedly try and fight back, but rarely succeed. Ours didn’t slow down this project in any way. But what was incredibly obvious was that not one single environmental organization has stepped up and questioned any of this. That’s unheard of in our region since the 70’s when nuclear power plants were planned before the Three Mile Island disaster. Environmental groups protected our valley with a vengeance. They didn’t always win, but it was a good “check and balance” to slow a process down.
I’m not a member of any of these organizations, but I do treasure our rural landscape. The dirt and weather are my life every single day. I was raised on a farm, and there is no other place I would rather be.
I’ve witnessed far too many protests from these activists that are simply … too much. So how strange that no one spoke out when hundreds of old growth trees were toppled with bulldozers a few months ago; the wetlands rife with bog and spotted turtles were mushed and filled; wildlife dens trampled; stormwater runoff is producing massive mudslides; and these gigantic building will undoubtedly drain our aquifers dry.
And not a peep from those that ten years ago would be screaming from the rafters and threatening the lumbermen with bodily harm.
Well, it turns out that this BigTech trillionaire, mentioned above, has been donating quite a bit of his wealth to various environmental organizations since 2020 to “bring the planet back.”
100 million to The Nature Conservancy; 60 Million to The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, for two examples. There are many, many more. And those not yet enjoying these donations know darn well their coffers may be filled in the future. That ensures a lot of “staying in the shadows” and allowing a few environmentally and historically sensitive areas to be sacrificed for our national security and a promise of clean energy. All are quite hopeful that nuclear energy arrives as promised. This the environmentalists here are raving about.
We’re also a military family for my entire life. I understand the defense aspect of this technology. But there should remain a “check and balance” on this AI and data center expansion, and communities should be protected from these massive developments. If not, where are we to live?
It’s that old, tired saying, “It’s all about the money.” Toss hundreds of millions to any organization, political or .org, and the charter of their mission quietly shifts. I’ve never witnessed this before.
So this is a finely orchestrated and oiled machine, and I doubt anything will ever be able to stop these BigTech companies from infiltrating every aspect of our existence and our personal lives.
If this is good or bad in the long run, I simply don’t know. I do know that for the first time in my life, at 65, I’m so thankful that my early life was quiet and our social bonds were comforting and strong. I felt safe for most of my life.
Seeing what has happened at our doorstep now, I don’t feel quite so safe anymore.
A few observations:
– I served in the Pentagon and its procurement policies need to be changed. Military/Industrial complex is alive and well and there certainly would be cost savings with increased capabilities.
-Speak softly and carry a bigger stick than anyone else usually wins. Trump will bring real lethality back to the services but I agree with one commenter that the most effective is the biggest economic stick.
Nice summation. But since the 1950s IBM has been four fifths of US signals intelligence, and has received a staggering % of its revenues from the military, as well as state guarantees of corporate survival, even against domestic competitors. Unassailable.
Today’s war is not fought with weapons – it is one of demoralization and subversion. To think that we can arm our way through this is a little like bringing a knife to a gun fight.
If you haven’t watched any of Yuri Bezmenov’s lectures from the 1980’s that are available on YouTube, they are almost prophetic. Based on ideas from Sun Tzu’s The Art of War, Russia’s ‘Great Brainwashing’ against the West has been underway for some time.
Some of the comments on this article make me feel uncomfortable.
Link to Drone Wars UK
https://dronewars.net/future-wars/
Looking at the many comments here, I find myself in the minority. Scrutiny is key?
Please see here:
“Current innovations in artificial intelligence, robotics, autonomous systems, and biotechnology, are expected to bring social transformations on an unprecedented scale. However, these technologies are also being used in the military and security realms in ways which are not yet fully understood by the public. The capabilities they provide will directly and indirectly affect global peace and security, the nature of armed conflicts and how insecurity is managed. Scrutiny of these developments and explaining them in an accessible way to decision makers and the general public is crucial to prevent increased humanitarian harm during armed conflict.” See Future Wars link.
Following on from “innovations”, please see Palantir here:
https://nopalantir.org.uk/
Scrutiny.
Please also see my response to the “most voted” comment.
If Little Tech defense companies become wedded to the US government funding teat, it’s a risk we should be willing to take.
The Chinese are preparing for war. In a very big, unmistakable way. They are devoting a huge portion of their overall national economic, industrial and technical capability to it. Soon—if not already—they’ll be able to overwhelm or outlast us in a Pacific war. It also seems very likely that, once the Chinese possess a military that is strong enough to overmatch the US military, they will test us. They won’t be happy with just coexisting with us in the Pacific, or elsewhere in the world. They will try to achieve relative advantages, if not dominance, in military strength over us in parts of the world where China wants to be preeminent.
If tech oligarchs can help us counter the Chinese, we should be grateful for their help.
The AK-47 is the most widely used weapon in terrorism and warfare outside of US, primarily because it is the cheapest and most accessible firearm ever made. If America believes that drones or technology will make it the dominant military force, this is the most foolish assumption I’ve ever heard.
Drones will become the “AK-47 of tomorrow”—cheap, easy to produce, and available to anyone.
You are not powerful if your own weapon can be used against you even more effectively. This is why relying on drone or distance warfare is a terrible idea.
While many people may be excited about using drones for targeted strikes and surveillance, the reality is that once the idea is out there, it no longer belongs solely to America. Other nations and groups can and will use it “better” than the U.S. In the end, this strategy will backfire. The U.S. is essentially “creating the next AK-47” while believing it will be the only one to wield it.
Technology is about to reveal the true nature of war—not about who has the best weapons, but about how accessible those weapons become to the masses and our enemies! Just like nuclear deters nuclear, we are entering cellphone deterrence! War will simply become guerrilla warfare! And those willing to die will survive not willing to win!
They better focus cosmo travel, it is much easier than create a war culture very close to home,!
I am not bothered by any of the developments lamented in this article. We live in a dangerous world, and the author seems rather naive about China’s intentions. Being strong, sell-prepared, and on the leading edge of war and technology is not the same as being a war monger. The private sector is far more efficient than the government and I celebrate the role of our best and brightest in building our strength. Now we need to onshore more the manufacturing of the crucial components needed to build our lead in this crucial arena.